1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 RICHARD A MCCALLA, Case No. 4:22-cv-00675-KAW
8 Plaintiff, PRETRIAL CONFERENCE TENTATIVE RULINGS 9 v.
10 JAMES NORD, 11 Defendant.
12 13 I. MOTIONS IN LIMINE 14 MIL Motion Ruling Reason/Explanation 15 Defendant opposes. Mr. Tate is a To exclude GRANTED IN qualified expert in regards to trust 16 P1 Defendant’s liability PART administration. He is not qualified to expert from testifying testify regarding construction issues. 17
18 19 Plaintiff opposes. Appraisals are 20 admissible under the business records To exclude property exception in Federal Rule of Evidence 21 D1 appraisal evidence DENIED 803(6). The appraisers do not have to be 22 designated as experts, as they are percipient witnesses. 23 24 To preclude Plaintiff from argument and Plaintiff opposes. Thomas and Shirly’s 25 testimony that Oregon interest in the Oregon Property may be D2 Property was part of DENIED Trust assets rendering the Oregon 26 the McCalla Family Property relevant. 27 Trust Plaintiff opposes. Ms. Wycoff is a 1 qualified expert in trust administration. 2 To exclude opinions She testified as to her experience and and testimony from the documents reviewed in formulating 3 D3 Plaintiff’s Expert DENIED her opinion. Defendant’s concerns go to Varee Wycoff credibility rather than admissibility, and 4 are appropriately addressed on cross- examination. 5 Plaintiff opposes. The only evidence 6 excluded from Plaintiff’s case-in-chief are the new Napa Property photographs. 7 To exclude evidence Even so, those photographs may be not previously GRANTED IN 8 D4 disclosed or timely PART introduced for impeachment purposes. The motion is denied as to all other produced 9 evidence, but Defendant may reopen Plaintiff’s deposition regarding the 2021 10 closing disclosure paperwork. 11 12 II. BIFURCATION 13 While the parties did not file a formal motion to bifurcate, the Court is not inclined to 14 bifurcate the punitive damages phase, if any, from the liability phase. (Joint Pretrial Conference 15 Statement, “JPCS,” Dkt. No. 63 at 8.) 16 III. REMOTE TESTIMONY 17 Plaintiff has not provided sufficient reason to permit third-party witnesses to testify 18 remotely. (See JPCS at 14-15.) The Court will not permit the in-state witnesses to testify 19 remotely. If a suitable courtroom is available, the Court may permit the two out-of-state witnesses 20 (Frank Cuffe and John Nelson) to testify remotely so long as their direct examination is less than 21 one hour each. 22 IV. EVIDENTIARY ISSUES 23 A. Defendant’s objections to Plaintiff’s exhibits 24 The Court intends to rule as follows: EXHIBIT GROUNDS FOR OBJECTION RULING 25 Plaintiff’s Trial Defendant objects on the grounds the document is not 26 Exhibit 4 – Report of relevant, and is more prejudicial than probative. F.R.E. 402, 403. Report pertains to events before relevant time OVERRULED Suspected Dependent 27 period of this case. Adult/Elder Abuse dated December 18, foundation, and no individual with personal knowledge 1 2018. has authenticated the document. F.R.E. 901, 902. 2 Defendant further objects on the grounds that content of the document is inadmissible hearsay for which no 3 exception has been established or otherwise applies. See F.R.E. 801-804. 4 Plaintiff’s Trial Defendant objects on the grounds the document is not 5 Exhibit 5 – Email relevant, and is more prejudicial than probative. F.R.E. 402, 403. Document pertains to events before relevant OVERRULED 6 string between Maria time period of this case. Jimenez-Garcia and 7 Beatriz Ortiz dated Defendant objects on the grounds the document lacks February 14, 2019. foundation, and no individual with personal knowledge 8 has authenticated the document. F.R.E. 901, 902. 9 Defendant further objects on the grounds that content of the document is inadmissible hearsay for which no 10 exception has been established or otherwise applies. See F.R.E. 801-804. 11 Plaintiff’s Trial Defendant objects on the grounds the document is not 12 Exhibit 6 – Report of relevant, and is more prejudicial than probative. F.R.E. 402, 403. Report pertains to events before relevant time OVERRULED 13 Suspected Dependent period of this case. Adult/Elder Abuse 14 dated April 11, 2019. Defendant objects on the grounds the document lacks foundation, and no individual with personal knowledge 15 has authenticated the document. F.R.E. 901, 902. 16 Defendant further objects on the grounds that content of the document is inadmissible hearsay for which no 17 exception has been established or otherwise applies. See F.R.E. 801-804. 18 Plaintiff Trial Exhibit Defendant objects on the grounds the document is not 19 7 – Email string dated relevant, and is more prejudicial than probative. F.R.E. 402, 403. Document pertains to events before relevant OVERRULED 20 May 23, 2019 – May time period of this case. 24, 2019 between 21 Peggy Chiprez and Defendant objects on the grounds the document lacks Yvette Rodriguez. foundation, and no individual with personal knowledge 22 has authenticated the document. F.R.E. 901, 902. 23 Defendant further objects on the grounds that content of the document is inadmissible hearsay for which no 24 exception has been established or otherwise applies. See F.R.E. 801-804. 25 Plaintiff’s Trial Defendant objects on the grounds the document is not 26 Exhibit 10 – relevant, and is more prejudicial than probative. F.R.E. 402, 403. Examination occurred September 12, 2018, OVERRULED 27 Capacity Declaration and was limited to medical, not financial, consent. re Thomas McCalla foundation, and no individual with personal knowledge 1 filed June 17, 2019. has authenticated the document. F.R.E. 901, 902. 2 Opinions expressed are those of an expert, and Plaintiff has not designated an expert to opine on Thomas 3 McCalla’s medical issues. Testimony on, or authentication of, this document would result in 4 improper expert testimony by a lay witness. See Love v. U.S., 141 F.2d 981, 983 (8th Cir. 1944), Spitzer v. 5 Stichman, 278 F.2d 402, 409 (2nd Cir. 1960). 6 Defendant further objects on the grounds that content of the document is inadmissible hearsay for which no 7 exception has been established or otherwise applies. See F.R.E.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 RICHARD A MCCALLA, Case No. 4:22-cv-00675-KAW
8 Plaintiff, PRETRIAL CONFERENCE TENTATIVE RULINGS 9 v.
10 JAMES NORD, 11 Defendant.
12 13 I. MOTIONS IN LIMINE 14 MIL Motion Ruling Reason/Explanation 15 Defendant opposes. Mr. Tate is a To exclude GRANTED IN qualified expert in regards to trust 16 P1 Defendant’s liability PART administration. He is not qualified to expert from testifying testify regarding construction issues. 17
18 19 Plaintiff opposes. Appraisals are 20 admissible under the business records To exclude property exception in Federal Rule of Evidence 21 D1 appraisal evidence DENIED 803(6). The appraisers do not have to be 22 designated as experts, as they are percipient witnesses. 23 24 To preclude Plaintiff from argument and Plaintiff opposes. Thomas and Shirly’s 25 testimony that Oregon interest in the Oregon Property may be D2 Property was part of DENIED Trust assets rendering the Oregon 26 the McCalla Family Property relevant. 27 Trust Plaintiff opposes. Ms. Wycoff is a 1 qualified expert in trust administration. 2 To exclude opinions She testified as to her experience and and testimony from the documents reviewed in formulating 3 D3 Plaintiff’s Expert DENIED her opinion. Defendant’s concerns go to Varee Wycoff credibility rather than admissibility, and 4 are appropriately addressed on cross- examination. 5 Plaintiff opposes. The only evidence 6 excluded from Plaintiff’s case-in-chief are the new Napa Property photographs. 7 To exclude evidence Even so, those photographs may be not previously GRANTED IN 8 D4 disclosed or timely PART introduced for impeachment purposes. The motion is denied as to all other produced 9 evidence, but Defendant may reopen Plaintiff’s deposition regarding the 2021 10 closing disclosure paperwork. 11 12 II. BIFURCATION 13 While the parties did not file a formal motion to bifurcate, the Court is not inclined to 14 bifurcate the punitive damages phase, if any, from the liability phase. (Joint Pretrial Conference 15 Statement, “JPCS,” Dkt. No. 63 at 8.) 16 III. REMOTE TESTIMONY 17 Plaintiff has not provided sufficient reason to permit third-party witnesses to testify 18 remotely. (See JPCS at 14-15.) The Court will not permit the in-state witnesses to testify 19 remotely. If a suitable courtroom is available, the Court may permit the two out-of-state witnesses 20 (Frank Cuffe and John Nelson) to testify remotely so long as their direct examination is less than 21 one hour each. 22 IV. EVIDENTIARY ISSUES 23 A. Defendant’s objections to Plaintiff’s exhibits 24 The Court intends to rule as follows: EXHIBIT GROUNDS FOR OBJECTION RULING 25 Plaintiff’s Trial Defendant objects on the grounds the document is not 26 Exhibit 4 – Report of relevant, and is more prejudicial than probative. F.R.E. 402, 403. Report pertains to events before relevant time OVERRULED Suspected Dependent 27 period of this case. Adult/Elder Abuse dated December 18, foundation, and no individual with personal knowledge 1 2018. has authenticated the document. F.R.E. 901, 902. 2 Defendant further objects on the grounds that content of the document is inadmissible hearsay for which no 3 exception has been established or otherwise applies. See F.R.E. 801-804. 4 Plaintiff’s Trial Defendant objects on the grounds the document is not 5 Exhibit 5 – Email relevant, and is more prejudicial than probative. F.R.E. 402, 403. Document pertains to events before relevant OVERRULED 6 string between Maria time period of this case. Jimenez-Garcia and 7 Beatriz Ortiz dated Defendant objects on the grounds the document lacks February 14, 2019. foundation, and no individual with personal knowledge 8 has authenticated the document. F.R.E. 901, 902. 9 Defendant further objects on the grounds that content of the document is inadmissible hearsay for which no 10 exception has been established or otherwise applies. See F.R.E. 801-804. 11 Plaintiff’s Trial Defendant objects on the grounds the document is not 12 Exhibit 6 – Report of relevant, and is more prejudicial than probative. F.R.E. 402, 403. Report pertains to events before relevant time OVERRULED 13 Suspected Dependent period of this case. Adult/Elder Abuse 14 dated April 11, 2019. Defendant objects on the grounds the document lacks foundation, and no individual with personal knowledge 15 has authenticated the document. F.R.E. 901, 902. 16 Defendant further objects on the grounds that content of the document is inadmissible hearsay for which no 17 exception has been established or otherwise applies. See F.R.E. 801-804. 18 Plaintiff Trial Exhibit Defendant objects on the grounds the document is not 19 7 – Email string dated relevant, and is more prejudicial than probative. F.R.E. 402, 403. Document pertains to events before relevant OVERRULED 20 May 23, 2019 – May time period of this case. 24, 2019 between 21 Peggy Chiprez and Defendant objects on the grounds the document lacks Yvette Rodriguez. foundation, and no individual with personal knowledge 22 has authenticated the document. F.R.E. 901, 902. 23 Defendant further objects on the grounds that content of the document is inadmissible hearsay for which no 24 exception has been established or otherwise applies. See F.R.E. 801-804. 25 Plaintiff’s Trial Defendant objects on the grounds the document is not 26 Exhibit 10 – relevant, and is more prejudicial than probative. F.R.E. 402, 403. Examination occurred September 12, 2018, OVERRULED 27 Capacity Declaration and was limited to medical, not financial, consent. re Thomas McCalla foundation, and no individual with personal knowledge 1 filed June 17, 2019. has authenticated the document. F.R.E. 901, 902. 2 Opinions expressed are those of an expert, and Plaintiff has not designated an expert to opine on Thomas 3 McCalla’s medical issues. Testimony on, or authentication of, this document would result in 4 improper expert testimony by a lay witness. See Love v. U.S., 141 F.2d 981, 983 (8th Cir. 1944), Spitzer v. 5 Stichman, 278 F.2d 402, 409 (2nd Cir. 1960). 6 Defendant further objects on the grounds that content of the document is inadmissible hearsay for which no 7 exception has been established or otherwise applies. See F.R.E. 801-804. 8 Plaintiff’s Trial Defendant objects on the grounds the document is not 9 Exhibit 20 – email relevant, and is more prejudicial than probative. F.R.E. 402, 403. Report pertains to events before relevant time OVERRULED 10 from Beatriz Ortiz to period of this case. Emmanuel Odoi and 11 Maria Jimenez-Garcia Defendant objects on the grounds the document lacks dated July 31, 2019. foundation, and no individual with personal knowledge 12 has authenticated the document. F.R.E. 901, 902. 13 Defendant further objects on the grounds that content of the document is inadmissible hearsay for which no 14 exception has been established or otherwise applies. See F.R.E. 801-804. 15 Plaintiff’s Trial Subject to Nord’s Motion in Limine No. 2. 16 Exhibit 37 – Deed Defendant objects on the grounds the document is not OVERRULED 17 dated September 25, relevant, and is more prejudicial than probative. F.R.E. 2012. 402, 403. Report pertains to events before relevant time 18 period of this case. 19 Defendant objects on the grounds the document is inadmissible hearsay for which no exception has been 20 established or otherwise applies. See F.R.E. 801-804. 21 Defendant objects on the grounds the document lacks foundation, and no individual with personal knowledge 22 has authenticated the document. F.R.E. 901, 902. 23 Plaintiff’s Trial Subject to Nord’s Motion in Limine No. 2. 24 Exhibit 39 – Deed Defendant objects on the grounds the document is not OVERRULED dated December 19, relevant, and is more prejudicial than probative. F.R.E. 25 2019. 402, 403. 26 Defendant objects on the grounds the document is inadmissible hearsay for which no exception has been 27 established or otherwise applies. See F.R.E. 801-804. foundation, and no individual with personal knowledge 1 has authenticated the document. F.R.E. 901, 902. 2 Plaintiff’s Trial Subject to Nord’s Motion in Limine No. 2. Exhibit 40 – Sales 3 Defendant objects on the grounds the document is not OVERRULED data for Oregon relevant, and is more prejudicial than probative. F.R.E. 4 Property 402, 403. 5 Defendant objects on the grounds the document is inadmissible hearsay for which no exception has been 6 established or otherwise applies. See F.R.E. 801-804. 7 Defendant objects on the grounds the document lacks foundation, and no individual with personal knowledge 8 has authenticated the document. F.R.E. 901, 902. 9 Defendant further objects on the grounds the document was produced on September 26, 2023, months after the 10 discovery cutoff, and Plaintiff should not be permitted to introduce documents that were untimely produced. 11 F.R.C.P. 26(e), 37(c)(1). 12 Plaintiff’s Trial Defendant objects on the grounds the document is Exhibit 49 – IRS inadmissible hearsay for which no exception has been 13 established or otherwise applies. See F.R.E. 801-804. OVERRULED Notice to Thomas R. 14 McCalla dated June Defendant objects on the grounds the document lacks 1, 2020. foundation, and no individual with personal knowledge 15 has authenticated the document. F.R.E. 901, 902. 16 Plaintiff’s Trial Subject to Nord’s Motion in Limine No. 4. 17 Exhibit 113 – PG&E Defendant objects on the grounds the document is not OVERRULED Bills March 2020- relevant, and is more prejudicial than probative. F.R.E. 18 April 2023. 402, 403. 19 Defendant objects that the records are incomplete, with only selected months provided. F.R.E. 106. 20 Defendant objects on the grounds the document is 21 inadmissible hearsay for which no exception has been established or otherwise applies. See F.R.E. 801-804. 22 Defendant objects on the grounds the document lacks 23 foundation, and no individual with personal knowledge has authenticated the document. F.R.E. 901, 902. 24 Defendant further objects on the grounds the document 25 was produced on August 8, 2023, months after the discovery cutoff, and Plaintiff should not be permitted 26 to introduce documents that were untimely produced. F.R.C.P. 26(e), 37(c)(1). 27 Plaintiff’s Trial Defendant objects on the grounds the document is not 1 Exhibit 117 – 2021- relevant, and is more prejudicial than probative. F.R.E. 402, 403. Documents both pre and postdate Nord’s OVERRULED 2 2023 delinquent tax trusteeship, the attempt to claim tax liability from 2018 notices and tax outweighs the probative value of proving penalties for 3 payments late filing 4 Defendant objects on the grounds the document is inadmissible hearsay for which no exception has been 5 established or otherwise applies. See F.R.E. 801-804. 6 Defendant objects on the grounds the document lacks foundation, and no individual with personal knowledge 7 has authenticated the document. F.R.E. 901, 902. 8 Plaintiff’s Trial Subject to Defendant’s Motion in Limine No. 1. Exhibit 120 – 9 Defendant objects on the grounds the appraisal is more OVERRULED Appraisal dated prejudicial than probative. F.R.E. 402, 403. 10 February 28, 2019 Defendant objects on the grounds the document is 11 inadmissible hearsay for which no exception has been established or otherwise applies. See F.R.E. 801-804. 12 Defendant objects on the grounds the document lacks 13 foundation, and no individual with personal knowledge has authenticated the document. F.R.E. 901, 902. 14 The law is plain that when an appraisal is offered as 15 proof of value of the property at issue, it is hearsay because it is offered for the truth of the matter asserted. 16 (See Waddell v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue Serv., 841 F.2d 264, 267 (9th Cir. 1988) 17 Defendant objects on the grounds the document lacks 18 foundation, and no individual with personal knowledge has authenticated the document. Authentication by the 19 appraiser would result in improper expert testimony by a lay witness. See Love v. U.S., 141 F.2d 981, 983 (8th 20 Cir. 1944), Spitzer v. Stichman, 278 F.2d 402, 409 (2nd Cir. 1960). 21 Plaintiff’s Trial Subject to Defendant’s Motion in Limine No. 1. 22 Exhibit 121 – Defendant objects on the grounds the appraisal is more OVERRULED 23 Appraisal dated prejudicial than probative. F.R.E. 402, 403. September 22, 2021 24 Defendant objects on the grounds the document is inadmissible hearsay for which no exception has been 25 established or otherwise applies. See F.R.E. 801-804. 26 Defendant objects on the grounds the document lacks foundation, and no individual with personal knowledge 27 has authenticated the document. F.R.E. 901, 902. proof of value of the property at issue, it is hearsay 1 because it is offered for the truth of the matter asserted. (See Waddell v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue Serv., 841 2 F.2d 264, 267 (9th Cir. 1988) 3 Defendant objects on the grounds the document lacks foundation, and no individual with personal knowledge 4 has authenticated the document. Authentication by the appraiser would result in improper expert testimony by a 5 lay witness. See Love v. U.S., 141 F.2d 981, 983 (8th Cir. 1944), Spitzer v. Stichman, 278 F.2d 402, 409 (2nd 6 Cir. 1960). 7 Plaintiff’s Trial Subject to Nord’s Motion in Limine No. 4. Exhibit 122 – Photos 8 Defendant objects on the grounds the document is not SUSTAINED of Napa Property. relevant, and is more prejudicial than probative. F.R.E. IN PART 9 402, 403. Photos appears to have been taken after Nord’s trusteeship. Only the 10 photos Defendant objects that the records are incomplete, with produced on 11 only selected months provided. F.R.E. 106. or after September 26, 12 Defendant objects on the grounds the document lacks 2023 are foundation, and no individual with personal knowledge excluded 13 has authenticated the document. F.R.E. 901, 902. 14 Defendant further objects on the grounds the document was produced on September 26, 2023, months after the 15 discovery cutoff, and Plaintiff should not be permitted to introduce documents that were untimely produced. 16 F.R.C.P. 26(e), 37(c)(1). 17 Plaintiff’s Trial Subject to Nord’s Motion in Limine No. 4. Exhibit 123 – 18 Defendant objects on the grounds the document is OVERRULED Closing disclosure inadmissible hearsay for which no exception has been 19 dated October 28, established or otherwise applies. See F.R.E. 801-804. 2021 20 Defendant objects on the grounds the document lacks foundation, and no individual with personal knowledge 21 has authenticated the document. F.R.E. 901, 902. 22 Defendant further objects on the grounds the document was produced on September 26, 2023, months after the 23 discovery cutoff, and Plaintiff should not be permitted to introduce documents that were untimely produced. 24 F.R.C.P. 26(e), 37(c)(1). 25 Defendant objects on the grounds the document is not relevant, and is more prejudicial than probative. F.R.E. 26 402, 403. The document post-date Nord’s time as trustee, was an independent decision of Plaintiff, and is 27 in no way connected Nord’s trusteeship. Plaintiff’s Trial Subject to Nord’s Motion in Limine No. 4. 1 Exhibit 124 – Repair Defendant objects on the grounds the document is not OVERRULED 2 invoices relevant, and is more prejudicial than probative. F.R.E. 402, 403. 3 Defendant objects on the grounds the document is 4 inadmissible hearsay for which no exception has been established or otherwise applies. See F.R.E. 801-804. 5 Defendant objects on the grounds the document lacks 6 foundation, and no individual with personal knowledge has authenticated the document. F.R.E. 901, 902. 7 Defendant further objects on the grounds the document 8 was produced on September 26, 2023, months after the discovery cutoff, and Plaintiff should not be permitted 9 to introduce documents that were untimely produced. F.R.C.P. 26(e), 37(c)(1). 10 Plaintiff’s Trial Defendant objects on the grounds the document is 11 Exhibit 125 – inadmissible hearsay for which no exception has been established or otherwise applies. See F.R.E. 801-804. OVERRULED 12 spreadsheet of expenses advanced by Defendant objects to Plaintiff’s improper use of a 13 Rick McCalla summary spreadsheet without providing the originals or duplicates of each entry. F.R.E. 1006. 14 Defendant objects on the grounds that the summary of 15 expenditures is irrelevant, and more prejudicial than probative. F.R.E. 403. Plaintiff’s personal spending 16 decisions are not relevant to the claims in this case, and without expert examination of the reliability and 17 necessity of the expenditures, the spreadsheet will serve to prejudice to the jury without providing any probative 18 value. Further, the documents are dated outside the relevant time period of Nord’s trusteeship. 19 Plaintiff’s Trial Subject to Nord’s Motion in Limine No. 4. 20 Exhibit 126 – Defendant objects on the grounds that the credit card OVERRULED 21 American Express statement is irrelevant, and more prejudicial than statement for Rick probative. The records are outside the relevant time 22 McCalla for period of Nord’s trusteeship F.R.E. 402, 403. November 2021 23 Plaintiff’s personal spending decisions are not relevant to the claims in this case, and without expert 24 examination of the reliability and necessity of the expenditures, the credit card statement will serve to 25 prejudice to the jury without providing any probative value. 26 Defendant further objects on the grounds the document 27 was produced on September 26, 2023, months after the F.R.C.P. 26(e), 37(c)(1). 1 Plaintiff’s Trial Subject to Nord’s Motion in Limine No. 3 2 Exhibit 127 – Expert Defendant objects on the grounds that the expert report OVERRULED 3 Witness Report and is inadmissible, as it fails to meet the requirements of Curriculum Vitae for F.R.E. 702. 4 Varee Wycoff Ms. Wycoff’s report is not based on sufficient facts or 5 data, the report is not the product of reliable methods, and Ms. Wycoff failed to apply the requisite principles 6 and methods reliably to the facts in this case. 7 Instead, Ms. Wycoff’s report relies on her application and interpretation of the California Probate Code, which 8 is not the proper subject matter of expert opinion. 9 10 B. Exhibits 11 The Court is committed to reducing any unnecessary time spent in the courtroom, so the 12 parties are ordered to meet and confer regarding stipulating to the admission of any exhibits to 13 which they do not object. 14 V. JURY INSTRUCTIONS 15 The parties provided the Stipulations of Fact instruction (Ninth Circuit Model 2.2), but did 16 not identify to which facts, if any, they are stipulating. (Dkt. No. 64 at 25.) The same deficiency 17 exists as to the Judicial Notice instruction (Ninth Circuit Model 2.3). Id. at 26. The parties are 18 instructed to submit amended jury instructions containing the list of stipulated and/or judicially 19 noticed facts by the pretrial conference. If there are no such facts, these instructions are 20 unnecessary, and the parties need only inform the Court that they are no longer required. 21 VI. PROPOSED VERDICT FORM 22 The Court appreciates the parties’ proposed joint verdict form (Dkt. No. 72). The proposed 23 verdict form, however, contemplates a bifurcated punitive damages phase. The Court is not 24 inclined to bifurcate, so the parties should expect to file an amended verdict form that includes the 25 amount of punitive damages. 26 VII. COVID PRECAUTIONS 27 In light of the ongoing pandemic and respiratory virus season, the undersigned is 1 Currently, masking inside the courthouse is determined by the level of community transmission of 2 || COVID-19. When a county where a Northern District of California divisional office is located 3 |} moves to high community transmission, masking will be required in the courthouse. Thus, the 4 || Court may impose a mask mandate if the number of community cases rise, or if there is a change 5 in guidance from local public health agencies. 6 Anyone experiencing any symptoms of COVID-19 or other respiratory viruses, including 7 fever or cold-like symptoms, is not permitted to enter the courthouse. If this happens, the parties 8 are directed to notify the courtroom deputy at kawcrd@cand.uscourts.gov. 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. 10 Dated: November 7, 2023
AWDIS A. WESTMORE 2 Unitéd States Magistrate Judge
© 15 16
= 17
Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28